Template talk:Iguanidae

"Class" entry

Hi Line 8 the Pink – according to the sources I can find, the taxonomical "class" for reptiles is still "Reptilia". Can you show me in reliable sources where this has changed to "Sauropsida"? According to the English Wikipedia's Reptile article, "Sauropsida" is a "clade", not a "class". I cannot find any reliable source that supports the position of the Korean Wikipedia. Please point me to some reliable sources if possible. Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 03:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For in Korea wikipedia, or about dinosaurs, they say sauropsida not reptila. I will find the image to show you about classes of the vertebrates.Line 8 the Pink (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it says in the Korean wikipedia about birds, it says 새는 분기분류법으로 석형강 공룡상목 조강에 속한다. It translates like "Bird class is Aves, but it is sauropsida, dinosauria, Aves." So that means sauropsid is a class. In Korean, 강 means class and 류 means unranked clade, but it says class.Line 8 the Pink (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to you and to the Korean Wikipedia, all of Wikipedia must use reliable sources from outside of Wikipedia. The links below are to reliable sources used in English Wikipedia articles, and all those sources show that the scientific community still uses "Reptilia" as the class for lizards, turtles and other reptiles. And they show "Sauropsida" as unranked. There cannot be two classes for any one animal in taxonomy, and the reptile class is still "Reptilia". Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 10:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I had to remove the image from this page because it is a copyright violation and, according to Commons, it is not used anywhere on Wikipedia including not on the Korean Wikipedia. Please do not upload any images to Commons that are not free for all to see. Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 10:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing should be brought to your attention, Line 8 the Pink: You should be aware that this website is the Namu wiki, it is not the Korean Wikipedia. It is a wiki, but not Wikipedia. You should remember that wikis are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, and that includes Wikipedia itself. Your sources must be reliable if you want them to support your arguments. Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 11:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

None of the above sources support "Sauropsida" as the taxonomical class for reptiles. Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 04:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For I said that sauropsida is a class for dinosaurs. Because birds evolved from reptiles but difficult to separate them. Line 8 the Pink (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that is not supported by reliable sources either. There are the dinosaurs that are Sauropods, and yet even they are not listed in any class named Sauropsida. And if you said that Sauropsida is a class for dinosaurs, then why did you change this lizard (reptile – non-dinosaur) template? Also, the evolutionary line taught these days is:

reptiles → dinosaurs → birds

So the fossil record indicates that dinosaurs evolved from reptiles and that birds are the last surviving group of dinosaurs, having evolved from feathered ancestors within the theropod group of dinosaurs. Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 14:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Line 8 the Pink (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC) I saw that sauropsida is a class because in the article Tetrapod, it's called a class.[reply]

That article is incorrect, and I will correct it as soon as I find a readable copy of the reference source. The cited reference does not appear to even contain the word "sauropsida" and lists reptiles as "class Reptilia" and birds as "class Aves". There is no reliable source I can find that lists Sauropsida as anything but an unranked clade. If you can find a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, then please show it. Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 22:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading further, I find that those listings in the Tetrapod article are not "incorrect", just "controversial". One has to read that entire section to understand that the taxonomy given in the Tetrapod article has been challenged by cladistics. So reptiles are still officially in class "Reptilia" and birds are officially in class "Aves". Sauropsida is an unranked clade. Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 22:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm confused. Line 8 the Pink (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well please remember that on the English Wikipedia, we sign our posts at the end of them, not at their beginning. Also, we must be compelled to stick to reliable sources, and those sources tell us that while a few scientists appear to think of "Sauropsida" as a biological class that connects the birds with reptiles, most scientists consider "Sauropsida" to be an unranked clade. Every source that I've checked still recognizes "Reptilia" as the biological class for reptiles and "Aves" as the class for birds. Since Wikipedia must think of its readers before all else, then we as editors have to give those readers information that is as correct and true as possible. That is why the Sauropsida and Tetrapod articles go into the cladistic controversy, and yet they still note that the prevailing scientific thought favors "Aves" and "Reptilia" as classes and "Sauropsida" as a clade. Let me take this opportunity to thank you for your improvements to articles about birds! I recognize that your expertise in that area far exceeds mine. Temporal Sunshine Paine 13:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for your help!Line 8 the Pink (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure! Paine